TEHRAN – Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, ignited a storm of criticism across the Middle East when he suggested it would be “fine” if Israel expanded to control the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. The swift and unified backlash from Arab and Islamic governments underscores not only regional anxieties but also growing suspicion of Washington’s support for Israel’s maximalist ambitions.
Countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey condemned Huckabee’s remarks as dangerous, illegal, and a direct threat to regional stability. Statements from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council stressed that sovereignty and borders cannot be dismissed, reflecting a rare moment of rhetorical unity. Yet beneath the surface, these responses reveal both caution and constraint.
Three factors explain the intensity of the reaction. First, regional governments sought to defend the existing political order. In a Middle East already scarred by wars, contested borders, and fragile states, any suggestion of redrawing maps based on religious or historical claims challenges the legitimacy of national borders. Prompt, coordinated criticism is a way to signal that such ambitions are unacceptable.
Second, the backlash also implicitly targeted Washington. Huckabee’s statements exposed a tension between U.S. rhetoric and its official stance. While the Trump administration officially opposes annexing the West Bank, comments like Huckabee’s feed suspicions that parts of the U.S. government tacitly endorse Israel’s expansionist vision—a “Greater Israel” agenda that seeks to extend Israeli influence well beyond its so-called borders. Even after disclaiming exaggeration, Huckabee left a lingering question: how aligned is U.S. policy with Israeli maximalism?
Third, domestic politics and public opinion played a role. Across the region, the Palestinian issue remains a flashpoint, and governments that have normalized relations with Israel cannot appear indifferent to popular sentiment. Strong condemnation demonstrates responsiveness to domestic audiences and reinforces solidarity with the Palestinian cause—even if the statements lack follow-through.
Yet the central question remains: will words translate into action? For all the denunciations, regional governments remain deeply enmeshed with Washington. Strategic alliances, military cooperation, and economic ties with the U.S.—as well as varying degrees of engagement with Israel—limit the ability of Arab and Islamic states to act decisively. Strong statements may reflect principle, but they do not alter facts on the ground or deter expansionist policies.
The Huckabee episode illuminates a persistent tension: Arab and Islamic states can speak with one voice when principles are challenged, but their capacity to enforce those principles is constrained by geopolitical realities. Meanwhile, U.S. support for Israel’s territorial ambitions—whether explicit or implied—continues to fuel suspicion and mistrust.
Ultimately, this is not just about one diplomat’s careless words. It is about the deeper regional unease over the U.S.-Israel alliance and its pursuit of a Greater Israel vision, and the stark difference between principled statements and practical action.
Without concrete measures, even the most forceful condemnations risk remaining symbolic rather than substantive.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
